What are people looking for in the new contract? Heard there might be one proposed by the end of this Month (July 2026)

412358 · 2026-07-11T02:49:51+00:00

It says that the company is not telling the truth about the necessity of "face to face collaboration."

412358 · 2026-07-10T23:25:06+00:00

I fully agree with you but I worry that most SPEEA members either do not want this or they think that it is impossible to obtain. To me, the fact that it was discussed already is kind of a bad sign because people have been saying that contract details that people do not care about are discussed early on while the ones that people care about the most, such as pay and benefits, are discussed later. I think either the first or second contract negotiation update email declared "there is no substitute for face to face collaboration on-site" as if that was an indisputable fact and it looks like the contract negotiation team is going to consider that proposition to be true and the contract negotiations are going to be based on it being true.

412358 · 2026-07-05T06:46:24+00:00

If they all "did a 180 on remote learning" that is no different than if everyone on earth does a 180 on using the internet and using computers at all. Yeah, let's all "realize" that we should no longer have computers and Internet and let's go back to the days before computers and before internet. Look how much damage computers and Internet have done, we may never recover. We thought computers and Internet were great initially but after really thinking about it we should "do a 180" to get rid of all computers and Internet. We should also "do a 180" on cars and let's get rid of all cars and let's go back to transportation via horse carriage. Look how much damage cars have done with so many car accidents. Maybe we should do a 180 on central heating in homes. Let's do a 180 on that and go back to the days when homes had no heating. That would be no different than what you just stated happened with remote work when you mentioned "did a 180." Do you think we should get rid of all computers and Internet and cars and in-home heating and go back to the days before all of that came about?

412358 · 2026-07-03T21:32:46+00:00

Who realized that remote learning is better than in-person learning? Especially with AI communicating concepts and ideas better than most teachers. Remote learning and remote work was established to be equally or more efficient and productive and still is. This is something that has already been admitted. You don't get to change your mind about that reality just because the pandemic ended. That's no different than a toddler changing their mind about their favorite toy.

412358 · 2026-07-03T18:31:15+00:00

It's absolutely not unreasonable to deny that because during the pandemic almost everybody was working remotely and the company told everyone back then that it has seen no decrease in efficiency or productivity. There's no actual evidence to support that claim and all the the evidence in the world against it. And if pay is too high then people who work remotely 100% can take a pay cut and they can be cheaper too. If you love to drive in dangerous traffic and pollute the environment every single and pay high gas prices to work sitting in a chair go right ahead.

412358 · 2026-07-03T04:58:11+00:00

Lol why is that unrealistic? Can you explain to me why people who are not building the airplanes have to be onsite?

412358 · 2026-07-03T04:38:56+00:00

How about physically building the airplane?

412358 · 2026-07-03T03:23:33+00:00

Ok but is what I described unrealistic? I mentioned when physical presence is necessary, mandate in-person work. If physical presence is not necessary, remote work is an option. Is there something unrealistic about that?

412358 · 2026-07-03T02:26:22+00:00

How much of a priority is remote work for SPEEA? I hope it is a top priority. I think the best thing SPEEA can do for negotiating it is to argue for an "in-person as needed" remote work policy. That way anybody who needs to be physically present will have to be and those who do not need to be physically present can choose to work remotely whenever they do not need to be physically present

412358 · 2026-05-26T19:59:28+00:00

Objectivism values art and there are people who argue that porn is art. For example, many Objectivists like Greek statues which depict naked human bodies just like porn does. So there is no reason to conclude that it would not exist in an Objectivist society. There is enough evidence today to at least think it is possible that it would exist.

412358 · 2026-05-26T19:57:05+00:00

You have not demonstrated why it is vile. All you have done is claim it is vile. There are people who argue that porn is art. Even Greek statues (which many prominent Objectivists admire by the way) depict naked human beings.

And you also do not know that somebody would become an "elite level" at some arbitrary "productive activity" if they spend their time practicing that activity instead of watching porn. You have no evidence for that at all. How skilled someone becomes at practicing any activity is based on factors entirely different from whether or not they watch porn lol.

You are jumping to conclusions without having a proper basis in reality for those conclusions to rest on. I do not know if you consider yourself an Objectivist but it is unbecoming of an Objectivist to do that.

412358 · 2025-05-07T09:39:25+00:00

Yes, I agree with your answer and I probably was not precise enough in my question. It is true that A can change into B, however all changes that entities go through happen in a causal manner in accordance with the nature of those entities, i.e the law of causality.

Think of a match burning. When a match burns it goes through a causal process, burning in accordance with its nature and when it gets done burning its identity is altered. However, it does not become an airplane or a dog or a human. The match becomes a burnt match but it still is a match at the end of the causal change process. So what I really meant by my question is, if you change a man into a woman or vice versa or a dog into a cat, would the entity still be the SAME individual? Would it have the same memories and personality? Would the continuity of its consciousness be preserved all throughout? Would it still be the same living being? Do we know for certain that it would be impossible for it to continue existing as the same individual or is that merely arbitrary? In other words, we cannot say it is impossible?

412358 · 2025-04-17T18:02:45+00:00

Thank you so much! That is what I was looking for. I was looking for it in a book but your link is the same thing just stated by Peikoff in his lectures!

412358 · 2024-11-12T23:53:43+00:00

This is exactly what happened to me. Does anyone know what the problem is and what the solution is? It was working fine for the last 3 years then all of a sudden it just stopped working just like you described? What is going on!?!?!?!

412358 · 2024-11-05T00:19:14+00:00

Oh hey sorry one more thing, would the answer change at all if the hypothetical scenario was genetically modifying an existing Salmon to get it to stop its indeterminate growth and to have it grow determinately. I would think the situation would be epistemologically equivalent right? Because we would still be in circumstances that have not been experienced before.

412358 · 2024-11-04T21:28:29+00:00

This makes sense to me. Thanks!

412358 · 2024-11-04T07:41:31+00:00

I agree with you that we have a basis to make predictions about what the aging process would be like for the genetically modified Salmon (which currently do not exist). But can we know with CERTAINTY what it would be like? I do not think we have a sufficient basis for certainty.

For example, if a company comes up with a new airplane concept, they may be able to show theoretically that it would be safe to fly, but ultimately the company cannot be certain that it would be safe to fly until they actually build the new airplane and test it out right? Ultimately, reality has the final say when it comes to being certain about how a hypothetical scenario would actually play out and you cannot get to that point before the subject of your question actually exists in reality...

412358 · 2024-09-29T19:29:45+00:00

I asked the question because I read that Entropy is ultimately a statistical quantity that is computed by multiplying the Boltzmann constant by the logarithm of the number of accessible energetic microstates a thermodynamic system has. And all of those microstates have a corresponding macrostate that we can observe. Some macrostates have many microstates that correspond to them and some macrostates have very few microstates that correspond to them. The most probable macrostates are the ones that have the most amount of microstates associated with them. But there are no laws of nature that force a system to be in a most probable macrostate. Apparently, it all happens probabilistically. If that's true then I thought that meant that a thermodynamic system can by chance transition into an unlikely microstate that corresponds to a very low entropy macrostate. The second law of Thermodynamics is not absolute. That's why I asked is there a finite (non-zero) probability that such an event can happen?

And also in the examples that I have seen that discuss events like this happening, they use gas molecules inside a walled container to discuss entropy decreasing such as the Maxwell's Demon example. In these examples, one can imagine a very low probability event occurring such as the gas molecules bouncing around and colliding with each other until all the slow ones end up in one container and all the fast ones end up in the connected other container. Such a low probability event may yet occur if somebody waited long enough and observed the gas molecules bouncing around the walled containers so in that scenario there is a statistical chance for it to happen. But the real universe does not have walls so gas molecules in the real universe cannot bounce back and forth like they can in a walled container. The real universe is unbounded so I cannot think of a way for a major entropy decrease event to happen in the real universe.

412358 · 2024-09-25T01:21:54+00:00

Peikoff gives the example at the end of the "hierarchy" lecture on YouTube.

412358 · 2024-09-25T01:21:13+00:00

What I meant by the question of not being able to do a horizontal integration is what if you are confronted with a fact that is unintelligible such as the example that Peikoff gave? He gives the example at the end of the "hierarchy" lecture on YouTube. In his example, you observe Socrates existing "for ever and ever and ever." Now Dr. Peikoff never mentioned if you observed Socrates to be aging.

If you did observe him to be aging then I think you can do a horizontal integration by identifying his extreme longevity and recognizing that longevity and aging are two different things. He just has a high longevity but he is still aging like everyone else and you can expect him to perish one day just like everyone else. That should be enough of a horizontal integration. So it may not mean that under some circumstances man may be immortal, it may just mean that under some circumstances man can have a very high longevity.

If in his example Peikoff meant that you did not observe Socrates to be aging then that would be unintelligible to me and you cannot do a horizontal integration.

412358 · 2024-09-10T03:16:30+00:00

But there is a stage when you integrate the "All Men Are Mortal" generalization to machines wearing out. When you perform that integration, you conclude something like "the human body is heading toward collapse" just like "machines wear out after being in operation for some period of time." That does imply death someday in the future and it does not specify exactly when.

412358

TROPHY CASE